Lang v. Lilley & Thurston Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco refusing to vacate a judgment of dismissal entered upon the default of the plaintiff in failing to file an amended complaint'. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Costello & Costello, and A. W. Brouillet, for Appellant. Linforth & Herrington, and C. H. Wilson, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order refusing to vacate a judgment entered in favor of the defendants Mahony Brothers. The following are the facts: Plaintiff had filed three complaints, to all of which demurrers had been sustained. To his last complaint, the second amended complaint, plaintiff confessed demurrer and asked and obtained ten days’ time within which to file a third amended complaint. By stipulation between the attorneys this time was extended ten days. When the time thus extended by stipulation was about to expire on August 31, 1910, plaintiff’s attorney telephoned…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ingrim v. EppersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
3Cited by6 opinions
- Cortelyou v. Imperial Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Riskin v. TowersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Marcucci v. VowinckelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Ross v. RossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Aregood v. TraegerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.